Ignorant fucktard Jon Wagar of Valley City, N.D. writes, "[T]here are numerous writers/historians that have documented the existence of Jesus Christ [including] Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger... Even the Jewish Talmud talks about Jesus Christ."
Let's see what ten minutes on Wikipedia reveals.
The consensus is that Josephus' mention of Jesus is at least partly false. Even the partial authenticity is at least controversial, with the affirmative view a tiny minority.
Tacitus mentions Jesus c. 116 CE, and Pliny the Younger is c. 112 CE, so it unlikely at best that they document the fact of Jesus' existence, only of the subsequent popular belief. The existence of the Christian religion is not at all controversial. The Tosefta (c 200) and Babylonian Talmud (c 500) "rarely mention a 'Yeshu' and are, like Tacitus and Pliny, too late to be direct documentation.
The material underlying the Toledot Yeshu ("The Biography of Jesus") is difficult to trace, but is no earlier than the 2nd century CE, and "[s]cholarly consensus, according to van Voorst, dismisses it as a reliable source for the historical Jesus."
The fucktard goes on to assert, "In fact, there is more historical documentation of Jesus Christ than any other founder of any world religion, including Zoroaster, Buddha and Muhammad." The historicity of Muhammad — at least in the sense of the author of the Koran; somebody wrote it — is obvious, but comparing the historiocity of Jesus to that of Buddha and Zoroaster is hardly a compelling argument.
Seriously... can these fucktards do even the minimum necessary research before opening their fool mouths? (Apparently not.)